People v. Queen
Illinois Supreme Court
1Concurrence
MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH,
specially concurring:
I agree that the failure of the trial court to consider the jury’s request to hear the defendant’s testimony in the erroneous belief that it did not have discretion to do so requires remand for a new trial. I cannot, however, concur in the majority opinion insofar as it treats defendant’s other claim of error arising out of his cross-examination and the comments of the State’s Attorney in final argument. If the opinion stands for the proposition that the objection was not sufficiently specific to preserve the alleged error, then of course the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Grunewald v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Bruno v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
- People v. BoboMichigan Supreme Court · 1973
- State v. StephensOhio Supreme Court · 1970
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.